Seperation of Church and State in the US Consitution

Rich · March 10th, 2007, 09:15 PM

My question is: Where is it?

The supposed political philosophy is said to be taken from the first amendment to the Constitution, which states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It says that Congress can't make a law pertaining to religion or to the free exercise thereof, so tell me: How does it mean that certain religious influences cannot be show by people who hold government office?

I'm not trying to say that the church should start meddling in the affairs of the government, nor am I saying that removing religious influences from government affairs is a bad thing, my point is: Is it even in the Constitution to begin with? If not, should it be added, or should we leave the Constitution as is and allow more religious influence in the government?

Thoughts, or comments?

evil_kenshin · March 10th, 2007, 09:22 PM

while this doesn't affect me since im not american, it seems pretty clear to me

it says they can't make a law to suit a particular religion, and since hardly any religions agree (and even with those that do there are differences), they can't make any laws at all for religious purpose's

Doctor Manhattan · March 10th, 2007, 10:58 PM

Although I agree with this, there is a serious violation to this.
-Presidents, Governers, and Witnesses get sworn on a bible.

Now tell me there arent Jewish or Islamic or Hindu governers

Rich · March 11th, 2007, 12:52 AM

Last time I recalled, being sworn in with a Bible isn't a law, I don't think. Congress shall pass no law.

var1ables · March 11th, 2007, 12:58 AM

There should be no influence on politics, and many things have been over turned(IE the pledge of allegiance, and soon the motto of america) because of that clause.As i love my country's constitution, i think that it should stay the way it is.

Rich · March 11th, 2007, 01:27 AM

Yeah, but why should we be enforcing something based on the Constitution that's not even in the Constitution?

var1ables · March 11th, 2007, 01:38 AM

^^It's not enforce, quite the contrary, if enforce, the school can be shut down.:) I love supreme court cases.

~~Shadukai X~~ · March 11th, 2007, 01:40 AM

I think it's found in the Bill of Rights, but then again, I might be wrong.

Rich · March 11th, 2007, 01:44 AM

Quote:

^^It's not enforce, quite the contrary, if enforce, the school can be shut down. I love supreme court cases.

Wait, what? xD As far as I know, it's overenforced, to the point at which it's gone too far.

And Shad, the 1st amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. The first 10 amendments to the Constitution are the "Bill of Rights"

Cache · March 11th, 2007, 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mastersepiroth

Now tell me there arent Jewish or Islamic or Hindu governers

There are, and frequently people of varying faiths are sworn in using whatever text is holy to them. There are even situations in court where a Wiccan has been sworn in on a Book of Shadows using the appreciation that it is a very personal text to them. America being a predominantly Christian country--whether active religious or passively environmentally so--it stands to reason that most of our representatives would use the bible to reflect the seriousness of their oaths.

Now what that means to a secular humanist... there you've got me.

violent_anger · March 11th, 2007, 05:15 AM

personally, despite being catholic, i think church and state should be seperated, sort of, simply because raving about your religion gets nowhere. I'd prefer a rational debate, possibly with religion as the reason.

but thats not the point of the thread, is it? now then, why should religion ahve no less influence int he government then the way a government official's parents raised him or her? if say, the president was raised by his/her parents to value hardwork above shortcuts, why should his/her parents views be able to ahve such influence?

i know i put that horribly, but i think you get the idea.

edit: swear them to oath standing over their grandmother's grave

Phoenix · March 11th, 2007, 05:52 AM

Quote:

but thats not the point of the thread, is it? now then, why should religion ahve no less influence int he government then the way a government official's parents raised him or her? if say, the president was raised by his/her parents to value hardwork above shortcuts, why should his/her parents views be able to ahve such influence?

What if the guy was raised with war movies, and think all war America wages must be for the greater good, and thinks America has the right to interfere anywhere in the world? Should Americans allow this kind of influence in high positions?

violent_anger · March 11th, 2007, 06:01 AM

^why would/should the constitution allow those war movies to influence america, but not religion?

Phoenix · March 11th, 2007, 06:02 AM

Again, they both *should* be kept to the person.

Straw_Hat · March 11th, 2007, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by violent_anger

but thats not the point of the thread, is it? now then, why should religion ahve no less influence int he government then the way a government official's parents raised him or her? if say, the president was raised by his/her parents to value hardwork above shortcuts, why should his/her parents views be able to ahve such influence?

this doesn't seem to be the point of the thread either....

Raito: you've found good evidence supporting the idea that it is not found in the Constitution, or rather, at least not where it is said to be found. I don't have the time to search the entire constitution right now, mind you, so i can't say for sure if it is or is not mentioned in there